Fascinating wildlife…

Menu

Do hunters conserve nature? This seemingly controversial issue seems to be a source of never-ending debate. I recently found a text discussing this issue, published in the “Finnish Nature” (Suomen Luonto) magazine as early as 1944. While conservationists and hunters may sometimes be in direct conflict, some shared targets were recognized already in 1944.

O. Hytönen (1944) raised the very same observations that are still apparent. Although hunters kill animals, prey animal populations should not be eradicated by responsible hunting practices. Some hunting actions are straightly connected to nature conservation, such as feeding animals during harsh winters, habitat management and predator control. Currently discussed effect of trophy hunting as an important conservation tool in development countries is an example of an indirect connection: by paying for hunting permits hunters help to maintain local animal diversity. As noted in a recently published paper, banning of trophy hunting can lead to exacerbating biodiversity loss.

In 1953 “Finnish Nature” (Suomen Luonto) published another text on the subject, this time written by G. Bergman. Bergman wrote that the relationships between hunters and conservationists has not always been smooth in Finland, or in other Nordic countries, while no benefits could be gained from these conflicts. Bergman noted that modern game management has several shared principles with nature conservation. He also pointed out that nature conservation and hunting have successfully been managed together in the US. As during Bergman’s times, Europe is still somehow on separate paths, and the situation has become particularly inflamed in some countries. Ironically, Bergman wrote that if we refuse to understand the interests of others, nature conservation aims may be disturbed.

The good old American way

What were the good manners already mentioned by Bergman in America? Maybe he meant the Federal Duck Stamp system established already in 1934. All US hunters must buy a Duck Stamp on a yearly basis, however, whoever can get one. With this small cost the buyers contribute to bird habitat conservation. The US Fish and Wildlife Service advertises that the stamp is “among the most successful conservation tools ever created to protect habitat for birds and other wildlife”. About 1 500 000 stamps are bought yearly, and 98% of the profits are given to the National Wildlife Refuge System for wetland conservation.

Another traditional American actor smoothly combining conservation and hunting is Ducks Unlimited (DU), founded by a group of hunters in 1937. DU targets habitat conservation, and is now claimed to be the world’s largest and most effective private waterfowl and wetlands conservation organization according to their website. Most DU members are still hunters.

The land of a thousand lakes

Wetlands have been destroyed for a long time due to differing human interests, also in Finland. Some areas have been lost altogether, while some have lost their value due to e.g. vegetation overgrowth. We still have many lakes left, but shallow eutrophic lakes – the waterbird lakes – are the ones that have been lost most often. Hunters are a group with an interest to construct and restore wetlands. According to a report by the Finnish Wildlife Agency, hunters have constructed or restored about 2 000 wetlands during the past decades. In addition to benefitting game animals, the entire ecosystem benefits. Wetlands also offer several other ecosystem services, including water purification and erosion control.

Sometimes hunting itself supports animal populations. For example, hunters can help to maintain animal communities through ecosystem engineering pushed by hunting and the co-evolution of animals and humans. In 2013 a scientific paper showed that in Australia Aboriginal hunting was one of the cornerstones supporting monitor lizard populations. Monitor lizards occur most densely in areas where they are hunted, because of the hunting method used; the burning method creates a patchy mosaic of regrowth in the landscape. In areas with no hunters, occasional lightning strikes burn land in a more homogenous way, and thus also lizards are scarcer. The same practice might also benefit several other desert species. However, in many cases Aboriginals have lost their traditional hunting possibilities, and the loss of these traditional practices sustaining habitats might have contributed to decreasing populations of several desert animal species.

While the debate between hunting and nature conservation has already lasted a long time, and is still on-going, common targets have been raised throughout the process by cooperative actors of both sides. There has always been, and currently still are, differing hunting methods for concerning conservational effects, but it is self-evident that all these practices are not against conservation targets.

“It was the fifth red fox for the same day”. “Foxes are everywhere”, I thought numerous times during my summer job time in the region of Inari. I was amazed at the number of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) present in the very northern part of Finland. Nearly every day and no matter where I went, I discovered foxes. I observed foxes close to settlements, and at the end of forest gravel roads. They were mainly lonely adults, but litters of the same year were common too. In addition, the number of red fox dens supported the idea that they succeed well in the northern part of Finland. The arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) is adapted to life in arctic areas. In Finland, arctic foxes have bred in the regions of Inari and Utsjoki. Arctic fox populations are similar in size to those in Sweden and Norway. Population size at the end of the 1800s was estimated to be 15 000 individuals. At present, the size of the population is estimated to be only 120 individuals. Despite yearly sightings of arctic foxes in Finland, it is nearly 20 years since the last confirmed arctic fox litter. During the summer I began wondering how red foxes influence the declining arctic fox population?

Intensive hunting in the early 1900s was the ultimate reason for the collapse of the Fennoscandian arctic fox population. Even though arctic foxes were protected in 1940, the population did not return to its earlier size. There are several probable causes. Due to changes in reindeer husbandry, arctic foxes cannot exploit the same number of carrions. Global warming causes problems to arctic species and the arctic fox does not stretch the point. Climate change affects snow cover, which reflects on the amount of lemmings. Lemmings are a vital food source for arctic foxes. Arctic fox brood and litter sizes are bigger when the amount of voles and lemming are at their highest point. In addition, global warming is raising the tree line to higher altitudes on the fells. This improves the survival of red foxes in the areas inhabited by the arctic fox.

The red and arctic foxes cannot inhabit the same territory. Research has uncovered that red foxes colonize and annihilate arctic fox dens. The red fox is very adaptable to different habitats and competes for food with the arctic fox. The striking winning picture of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2015 –competition underlines the interactions between the two species. The arctic fox is smaller than the red fox and loses the competition for food and habitats. Exploring the number of litters in the last 20 years, it can be seen that while red fox litters have grown, arctic fox litters have declined. The first idea to prevent the spreading of red fox populations is extensive hunting. At the beginning of the millennium, red foxes were intensively hunted in the fell areas of Enontekiö and Utsjoki under the Naali Life – project. The catch quotas appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestrywere fulfilledvery well by hunters each year. Unfortunately, the hunting alone and the short hunting period in particular had hardly any significance for the arctic foxes.The hunting probably only improved the living conditions of the remaining red foxes and the population might even have strengthened.

Finnish hunters are active in culling semi-predators, like red foxes. It seems that Finnish hunters actively cull semi-predators up to the height of the Arctic Circle. Active culling does not occur in the regions of Inari and Utsjoki, at least in the same scales.Reasons for this are clear: hunters are less enthusiastic, distances are long, the road network is sparse, and snow coveris thick. Maybe hunters of northern Finland don’t feel that culling is as important as hunters in southern Finland do. Red fox culling has to be continuous and intensive year after year for it to have positive effects on the arctic fox population. In 2015, the Finnish wildlife agency, as a part of Management of invasive Raccoon Dogs (Nyctereutes procyonoides) in the north-European countries project, started a project to cull the raccoon dog population in Lapland. A similar project, focused on the red fox, could be a good motivator for local hunters to cull the red foxes.

Research has indicated that lynx (Lynx lynx) regulate red fox populations. Foxes do not succeed in areas where lynx populations are abundant. One of the reasons for red fox success in the fell areas could be a lack of lynx. Unfortunately, it is not realistic to expect that lynx could be the arctic fox’s rescuer. The EU-Life project SEFALO+ (Save the Endangered Fennoscandian Alopex lagopus) has shown that a combination of actions, supplementary feeding, red fox culling, and protection of dens, could cease the decline of the arctic fox population and even enhance it. Nevertheless, I began wondering whether all these actions to save the arctic fox population in the Nordic countries will merely delay their extinction? Their population is small and genetic variation low. Diseases may heavily impact such a small population. Another possible threat to the arctic fox is the occurrence of escaped farm foxes on the mountain tundra. They can breed with wild arctic foxes, but hybrids do not survive in the wild. There are many problems and threats, which Fennoscandian arctic fox population have to face to avoid extinction.

When I attended the International Wildlife Management Congress (5th IWMC) in Sapporo Japan, I was blown away with a very interesting group of sea snakes: the amphibious sea snakes (Laticaudinae), also known as sea kraits. They possess traits of both land and sea snakes. They are kind of torn between living on land or in the ocean. Their evolution has led to characteristics that enable them to live in both environments, at least for certain periods at a time. But these multiple skills come with a trade-off. For example the locomotion ability in aquatic environments may reduce their terrestrial locomotor ability and vice versa. Even though terrestrial crawling and aquatic swimming are superficially similar activities in snakes, they need different substrates to produce the motion. In general sea kraits move over twice as fast in water than on land.

The ability to move on land is based on both their ventral scales, which are wide just as with land snakes, and their poorly developed tail fins. Sea kraits also use land as their freshwater source. Even though they have a salt gland to excrete the excess salt, they also have to drink freshwater to obtain a proper water balance within their bodies. The freshwater resources that sea kraits use are rainwater, estuaries and sea springs. Estuaries are used by all species, not just to drink freshwater, but also to hide.

The reproduction of amphibious sea snakes differs from true sea snakes (Hydrophinae). Firstly, they are oviparous, whereas true sea snakes are viviparous. Viviparous means that snakes give birth to live young. Oviparous on the contrary means the animal lays eggs and the offspring hatch from them. Sea kraits return to land to mate and lay eggs. The eggs are laid in nests fulfilling certain specific condition.

Sea kraits have lungs for breathing. They therefore need to surface every 15 minutes on average to breathe. The breaking of the surface may take only a split second while a sea krait takes a breath of air and dives again. Most of their time they spend at sea in shallow tropical reefs, which are threatened in several ways. Agricultural and urban runoff, in addition to both organic and inorganic pollution are one of the main threats to shoreline tropical reefs. Many sea krait species are considered vulnerable or nearly threatened. Hopefully we will be able to conserve these interesting and mesmerizing creatures of the oceans before it’s too late.

Do you eat instant noodles, margarine, chips or cereals? All these products may include palm oil. It can also be found in shampoos and lipsticks. One must be attentive when reading informative labels, because a vague marking of “vegetable oil” can also mean palm oil. Most palm oil production is for nutritional purposes, less is aimed at fuel. Palm oil is a product of oil palms, which are cultivated mainly in Malaysia and Indonesia. Plantations are established in rainforests, which destroys the habitats of orangutans (Pongo abelii and Pongo pygmeaus) and many other species. So far orangutans have lost about 80% of their original habitats.

Most oil palm plantations are established in rainforests. This means that the original rainforest nature is lost. After abandoning the plantation sites, secondary forest growing on the site does not correspond with the original forest. Plantations established on peatlands will make climate change worse due to the release of carbon dioxide.

Certification has been used to attempt to solve the environmental problems concerning palm oil production. For example WWF has contributed by planning the Roundtable of Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)-certificate that stamps for responsibly produced oil. The certificate requires production to be sustainable in both environmental and societal issues.

In addition to environmental issues, palm oil production causes serious societal problems. Unclear landownership relations have led to conflicts between palm oil farmers and indigenous people. Human rights organizations are also concerned of the working conditions of cheap imported labor and undocumented immigrants on the plantations.

Voluntary agreements, such as RSPO try to respond to these gaps in national laws or the lack of following them. However, research published in 2014 found that RSPO has failed to conserve forest habitats, especially orangutan habitats in Indonesia.

The study found that the financial compensation is too small to encourage farmers to apply the certificate. The authors also suggest that there is too much room for interpretation in the guidance documents and that contradicting issues are not solved. In addition the authors saw that the integration of RSPO within the socio-politico-legal Indonesian context has failed and that there is not enough external control in the system. The authors suggest that the Indonesian palm oil sector needs to be reformed if we wish to conserve rainforest biodiversity. This would mean the implementation of a bottom-up approach that supports local development by socio-ecological regional planning.

Orangutans need large forest areas to survive. At the current rate orangutans are expected to become extinct from nature by 2020.

Dead wood is a necessary element for numerous species living in the boreal zone. It functions as a food resource, nesting space or growth substrate for several mammals, fungi, insects, and birds. Dead wood is produced through two main mechanisms: senescence and disturbances e.g. forest fires or wind damage. A controlled forest has less ageing trees and disturbances, and currently up to 90% of Fennoscandian forests have been influenced by forest management. The recent drop in dead wood levels due to intensive forest management across the globe has concurrently led to dead wood-dependent (= saproxylic) species becoming rare as well, which weakens food webs and ecosystem functionality. Managed forests may only contain a few cubic meters of dead wood per hectare, while dead wood levels in old-growth forests and forests influenced by disturbances can rise up to hundreds of cubic meters per hectare.

Strong disturbances are less frequent in moist lowland areas of the boreal zone, where dead wood is mainly created as single trees die due to competition and ageing. However, beavers act as wetland ecosystem engineers, raising floodwaters through the damming of water systems. These floodwaters kill surrounding shore forests due to oxygen deprivation, thus creating significant amounts of dead wood into the habitats. In certain cases the flooding may kill entire forest stands. Beavers can therefore be considered the main natural disturbance factor of lowland forests.

Beavers require wood for food and as a building material for their nests and dams. Foraging for woody materials causes the resource to run out within a few years, forcing the beavers to move location. The process of flooding and dead wood creation begins again in a new area, thus producing a continuation of dead wood hotspots into the landscape. Eventually after several years the beavers can return to a previously inhabited location, which will be then be repeatedly subjected to their engineering. These hotspots may be very important to dead wood -dependent species, especially as they uphold a network and continuous supply of different-aged dead wood.

Despite an overall decrease in dead wood levels, certain types of dead wood have become rarer in the boreal forest than others. Currently the rarest forms are standing dead trees (snags) and deciduous dead wood. Both have declined more rapidly than other types due to forest management actions and attitudes. Beavers create a broad range of dead wood types (e.g. downed wood, stumps and coniferous dead wood), but they particularly aid in the production of snags and deciduous dead wood. This is good news for many saproxylic species, as these organisms are often strongly specialized, utilizing very specific dead wood types.

The dead wood produced by beaver-induced flooding is also very moist, which may affect the wood-decay fungi species that begin colonizing the dead wood. For example, sac fungi are more tolerant of wet conditions, and may therefore outcompete Basidiomycetes at beaver sites. This in turn will lead to differing invertebrate communities that utilize sac fungi instead of Basidiomycetes. Very different dead wood –dependent species assemblages may therefore be formed at beaver sites compared to fire areas of clear-cuts. The interactions of these species are currently poorly understood.

The beaver offers a possibility for all-inclusive ecosystem conservation compared to the conservation of single species. The species could be used to produce dead wood and restore the shore forests of wetlands.

A few months ago I wrote a post on invasive species in Finland, and in particular on the North American beaver (Castor canadensis). I received a comment on how it is bold (or maybe the commenter meant reckless) to say that almost all invasive species are threatening the native species of the region. I began thinking of this comment, and tried to find some studies that proved that invasive species are beneficial for the subject ecosystem. Unfortunately, I only came up with sad tales. One very devastating example of invasive species is the Hawaiian Islands.

The Hawaiian Islands in the center of the Pacific Ocean are one of the most isolated islands in the world. Their endemic terrestrial species originate from some hundred species that migrated thousands of kilometers over the Pacific Ocean during several millions of years. Because of the immigration bottleneck and isolated evolution, the Hawaiian Islands have become a place for numerous distinctive and fascinating species. But it has also made the fauna and flora of the islands very vulnerable to various disturbances, such as human invasion and human-mediated invasions.

Nowadays almost a quarter of Hawaiian terrestrial species are non-native. Birds have probably suffered the most. Previously there were 11 native goose species in the Hawaiian Islands, but nowadays only one species is left: the nene (Branta sandvicensis), also known as the Hawaiian goose. The same has also happened to the native duck species; just two duck species are left (the Hawaiian duck, Anas wyvilliana and the Laysan duck, Anas laysanensis).

The main reasons for these extinctions are introduced predators (e.g. the feral cat and mongoose), and feral and game species (e.g. the mouflon, Axis deer and feral pig). There are almost 60 studies on domestic ungulates, but none have demonstrated any positive effects of them on native species. Ungulates stimulate the growth of grass among other things, leading to more grasses and less forest. And all this changes the light regime and fire resistance of an ecosystem. Grazing is therefore destructive to Hawaiian forests and to every native organism living in them. It has also been proven that the invasive vertebrate species of Hawaii have facilitated at least 33 invasive plant species. In addition to damages caused by grazing, feral pigs alter nutrient cycling and accelerate soil erosion.

There is still some light at the end of the tunnel, although it might be rather dim. The public has come to aid in the eradication of many species. Scientists and wildlife managers have concurrently begun multi-scale population monitoring, which includes aerial and ground-based visual surveys as well as trail cameras. To intensify and simplify the eradications even further, several hundred kilometers of management fences have been constructed. As an outcome of this some success stories have emerged; the eradication of rabbits and feral goats. Furthermore, the midway islands of Hawaii are now rat and non-native mammal free!

Unfortunately, it has been too late for some Hawaiian ecosystems. A key threshold has been crossed in some regions, and recovery of certain ecosystems may not be possible any longer. The populations of illegally introduced axis deer (Axis axis) have been reduced to some dozens, but their eventual eradication has been problematic, because assessing the number of remaining deers on private properties has proved difficult. The axis deer was introduced to provide game, so private properties owned by hunters act as reservoirs for the deer, from where they can be disperse to clean areas.

To conclude, I still dare say that almost all invasive species threaten native species. Even though some invasive species don’t harm all native species, we are always looking at nature as a complex ecosystem consisting of several species and functions. When introducing an alien species, we will always alter the pristine ecosystem.

Most people are familiar with the concept of extinction, and are aware of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (RLTS), a classification of the Earth’s organisms into different categories based on their population levels and dangers facing their survival. RLTS was founded in 1964, and was initially considered the best way forward in global conservation. Unfortunately, the plan of documenting all living organisms of the planet has proven cumbersome and slow, and currently the project’s aim is to classify 160 000 species by 2020. That accumulates to only 8% of all species currently known to exist. The task seems daunting and never-ending. Although certain individual species have been brought back from the brink of extinction thanks to having their “specs” measured, the RLTS has been unable to curb or stop the increasing population decline of countless species.

As a list of individual species has proved inadequate to counter biodiversity loss, the next step forward was taken during the 2000s with the formation of the Red List of Ecosystems (RLE). The idea behind this is fairly simple; each ecosystem is compared to a set of criteria, assessed in terms of its risk of collapsing (meaning the disintegration of its functioning leading to collapses in biodiversity), and finally categorized according to its current functioning and stability. It is in fact a hazard assessment for the extinction risk of individual ecosystems. The criteria used in evaluating each ecosystem includes assessing how much of their original flora and fauna have been converted, degraded or destroyed, and how much of their original size remains.

Classification is pretty similar to that of the RLTS: ecosystems can currently be at no risk of collapse (least concern), at three different levels of being threatened (vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered), or they may already be approaching a final state of degradation (collapse). We may also have too little information (data deficient) to make an assessment, or their health may not have been appraised yet (not evaluated).

Once classified, appropriate planning and management measures can be taken to enhance or restore ecosystem functionality, which often also improves the stability of societies living within the influence of these ecosystems. For example, wetland restoration benefits societies by providing cleaner water for household use and by preventing or lessening flood and drought damage.

The RLE is an important tool for communicating between ecologists, decision-makers, and developers. The system provides robust and straightforward guidelines that are applicable to all types of ecosystems around the globe. One noteworthy goal of the IUCN is to assess and showcase ecosystems that are currently doing well, not just those that are at risk of collapse. Such well-to-do ecosystems are important, so as to pinpoint the reasons and most efficient management practices that have led to their current health.

However, improvement is always necessary. One such avenue for improvement lies in getting nations to collaborate together in conserving ecosystems crossing borders. This would greatly improve the connectivity of landscapes, improving habitats for migratory species, species with large habitat area requirements etc. But when used jointly with other conservation measures, such as the assessment of ecosystem services, spatial management planning, and the IUCN RLTS, this new method seems very promising. Currently the aim of the IUCN is to have all the Earth’s ecosystems assessed by 2025. This will be carried out at the national and regional level, and results will be freely accessible in an online database.